The idea of nineteen frustrated men hijacking planes and steering them with such precision into three of their four desired targets (T1, T2 and the Pentagon, but not the White House) is a fairy tale. Many independent and alternative media sources (media not bought wholesale and controlled by its corporate sponsors and thus with no allegiances to any particular company or reason to censor any unpleasant truths) provide ample reason to believe the version of events as we’ve been told is a not-so-carefully woven story gathering strength not through force of fact (for the script is not based on fact) but through sheer repetition and inflicting of looped traumatic imagery, combined with jingoism reducing the geopolitical complexities of the day.

Can your information source explain why:

·NORAD (the North American Air Defense system) was “stood down,” that is, told not to intercept the hijacked planes, thereby averting the crash into the towers?

·Why Towers 1 & 2 (first reported in the media as “exploding,” then reported in the media as “collapsing”) went down, considering that they were designed to precisely stand up to planes and hurricane winds, and considering that no solid-steel construction building in history has ever collapsed due to fire before or after that day? Fire alone could not have reached a high enough temperature to melt enough of the steel in the towers, because there was not a constant oxygen supply to literally fuel the fire. What about the telltale “squibs” caught on video coming out of the buildings as they were going down, signs that a controlled demolition was bringing the buildings down neatly into their footprints in a matter of seconds? What about the evidence of thermite? What about reports from people who worked in the buildings noting strange people coming and going the weeks before the “attacks,” strange power outages and turnings off of the camera and alarm systems while “construction” and “upgrades” were happening on short or no notice?

·Why were massive “put options” placed on United and American airlines? Why were these very visible transactions not noticed or investigated by the SEC?

·Why tapes from the Pentagon attack were immediately seized and not shown to the public except for a few frames years later? Why is there not a plane-shaped hole in the side of the Pentagon? Why was there so little debris, and why was it disturbed, carried away by hand by staffers? Why did the plane just happen to make a quite complicated turn to make the hit away from the side where key staff like Rumsfeld were, but “coincidentally” on the side of the structure being diligently renovated for reinforced strength? Could hijackers fresh out of Florida flight school have been capable of such a maneuver?

·Can anyone relying on conventional media alone explain why Building 7, a building never hit by a plane and several hundred yards from the Twin Towers, crumbled to the ground after 5 pm that day after burning on only a few floors for a few hours? This steel-constructed building held the IRS, the Secret Service, the SEC, the Office of Emergency Management, and other offices. Why did it have to go down, or, in the words of new leaseholder Larry Silverstein, why was it “pulled”? Why is there massive media silence about Building 7?

·The EPA, then headed by Christine Todd Whitman, said the air was safe to breathe in Lower Manhattan, just so the markets could be re-opened quickly?

·Why weren’t the firefighter’s radios working? Why did there have to be so many needless deaths?

·Why was this day interpreted as an act of war requiring us to militarize immediately, but a commission investigating the attacks could not be called for over 400 days?

·Why was evidence from the scene of the crime (and sacred ground) immediately hauled away to Fresh Kills and to China? Tampering with evidence is a Federal Offence. Why the rush to clear the scene so quickly?

These are just a few of the questions the conventional media is not interested in probing, let along attempting to answer. The conventional media, consolidating and seeking more consolidation all the time. The conventional media, where NBC is owned by defense contractor giant GE. The conventional media, which seeks to commercialize and censor the Internet in the United States, to limit communication on web pages, forums, and blogs like these.

There is more than meets the eye when it comes to 9/11. No one individual has all the answers. When someone says the day was the result of an “inside job,” what they are trying to bring to light is the fact that the events of the day were not just a number of coincidental, horrifying, isolated incidents that can be avoided in the future through increased militarism and attention to “security.” What such a person is saying is that you need to see that the mainstream media has motives to deliberately distort and hide information from you, information that may have influenced how you voted in 2004 or how you will vote this November. The media is relying on a failure of memory on the part of the American people in order to control them. This complacency is also accomplished through our utterly bankrupt educational system that is only good at medicating children and administering them biased, meaningless, high-stakes tests with no relation whatsoever to skills or real learning. Honesty, integrity, and critical thinking are no longer revered in American life. We must use this day to insist on getting the answers the media and corporate interests would rather have us forget about. We must be brave enough to show the powers that be that some of us will not be bought off, that some of us not only remember, but question, and will not contain our drive for truth, not for the families of the victims, not for the families of the soldiers.

The events of 9/11, the “New Pearl Harbor” the neoconservatives were waiting for the implement their global agenda of warmongering and domestic enslavement—have been used to justify a shocking number of assaults to our freedom: from wiretapping, to the use of torture on those deemed “enemy combatants,” to the invasion and domination of other sovereign nations.We are no longer citizens with privacy and dignity—we are conforming, scared consumers. And it is guaranteed that we will lose our quality of life in return. Ron Paul was the only presidential candidate who spoke to all of these issues—including taking down the Federal Reserve, strengthening our currency, and running the wasteful and brutal system of taxation out of town. Predictably, Ron Paul was, on the whole, shut out of the mainstream media, despite an impressive number of supporters and financing from those supporters (and not major corporations). What his candidacy proves is that both major parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, are unwilling to ask the tough questions about what happened on 9/11 and are further unwilling to test the waters in implementing real, groundshaking, immediate change—because both sides are beholden to special interests. Blue or red, the betrayal is the same.

Even supposing this fairy tale is true, the myth of 19 (some of which were reported alive and well after the event by the BBC and others), that “they hate us for our freedom,” what “they” (the perpetually mysterious, exoticized, xenophobic, racist, polarizing “they”) actually hate us for is our stupidity, our wastefulness, our inability to see that our consumption of resources is putting the globe in peril but not before reducing two thirds’ of the world’s population to a slave-like existence, permitting deprivation and cruelty in the 21st century. If there is a “they,” their only fault is that they don’t see that it is not most Americans perpetrating that waste—not the ten million unemployed and not the likely fifty million without health insurance who barely have enough resources to move out of their ghetto or trailer park, let alone go to college or get anything other than a minimum-wage job (usually at Wal-Mart, at that). These aren’t the people influencing global policy. They are searching for dignity as well, and they are getting constantly beaten down by high costs and health problems brought on by processed food (often the only food they can afford, filled with aspartame and MSG) and a contaminated environment. They are not the ones deepening the debt and struggle of others; they are mired in the struggle. However, there is a cold elite in this country that not only is removed from this struggle—they are actively involved in wiping out and taxing to death anyone who cannot make six figures or a high five figures (I will be lucky to be entering the low five figures this year). These people, through the media, aim to tighten the screws on the poor and lower middle class, and they have succeeded—the gap between the rich and the poor in the United States, the “Leader of the Free World,” has never been higher in its two hundred-plus year history. If this is “Leadership,” don’t show me what falling behind looks like—I don’t think I can take it.

True patriots should remember this day and demand a true investigation, an independent, thorough and nonpartisan effort at decoding what truly happened before and during September 11, 2001.

That would be a far better use of our resources than bailing out the usurious financial sector or the irresponsible automotive industry; better than subsidizing companies that pollute the planet and aim to poison and reduce the food supply with genetically-modified crops; better than throwing money at the landlords who own this country while millions are on the brink of homelessness; better than screwing over our brave injured veterans while awarding never-ending contracts to Blackwater and KBR and Lockheed while civilians die in a country that we shouldn’t be in to begin with. A real and honest investigation would ultimately result in an end to all this madness, and it is for that reason alone that it is not being convened: it would be too much of a threat to the rampant exploitation and inequality that has become the status quo of American life.

Today, the world gives its condolences, but the grief will never end until we stop permitting war as a way of generating profit for a select few while the rest of us suffer.The grief will never end while we allow mass deceit to go on unpunished. The grief will never end until we demand our leaders stand up to their corporate puppetmasters and work for the people who elected them. The grief will never end until we become our own leaders and reassess what true security, freedom, and prosperity is. So long as poverty has been allowed to exist unchecked in America, there has never been freedom. As the number of poor will explode in America due to the neoconservative’s policies, the poor must find their voice—and really stand up and be counted. Trickle-down economics doesn’t work. Incarcerating one quarter of our adult population doesn’t work (though the FEMA “concentration” camps exist, waiting for the next disaster).

The grief will never end: where there is an injustice anywhere, there is injustice everywhere.

But where there is money, some people are just not interested in ending the injustice.

The time is now. We can let politics and the struggle for power distract us from the real problems facing the country and globe—food shortages, housing inequities, poverty, a looming water crisis, natural disasters, crumbling infrastructure—or we can act now to work on these urgent challenges. These are tasks that will require the foresight, cooperation, resourcefulness, and determination long absent from the public stage. They will require austerity and discipline, but most of all they require an angry populace that will insist on accountability and be vigilant in pursuing it. This is what it means when people say, “Democracy is not a spectator sport.” Anything else promotes the perpetuation of the plutocracy we currently have. The events of September 11, 2001 have been interpreted as the end of the “American Empire.” Besides the fact that a true democracy should not be interested in starting or maintaining empires, it must be said that the events of September 11, 2001 actually represented the failure of our Democratic system—which must be addressed with unfashionable attention to bona fide campaign finance reform, an end to racist gerrymandering (redistricting), term limits for all offices, stopping the practice of requiring identification to vote and other ways of preventing people from registering to vote, and an immediate end to the use of electronic voting machines, particularly those that would not permit a “paper trail” or written record of ballots cast. Until these very reasonable standards are met by a sincere democracy interested in counting the votes of all people, any election will be a complete farce.

Two films I hope to watch in the near future and will recommend to everyone are “Able Danger” and “Fabled Enemies.” “Able Danger” will discuss the program of that name that was one of the many “war games” being tested on that fateful day—but there are indications that the program is more sinister than a simple drill. Uncovering “Able Danger” should bring us right to the top of the military-industrial hierarchy that may have orchestrated most, if not all, of the attacks. “Fabled Enemies” is an Alex Jones production also probing who the real perpetrators are, and it promises to be a comprehensive investigation of some of the major players here and abroad.

Vote Ron Paul or we’ll be in Iraq forever and watch our dollar go down with it.

———–

USA in Iraq: Recession in the Crosshairs
By Jean-Louis Denier
Marianne2

Sunday 30 March 2008

The exorbitant cost of the war in Iraq risks plunging the United States a little further into a recession catastrophic for it … and the rest of the world!

If one effects a comparative analysis with other conflicts, one realizes that the binomial, quagmire/occupation of a large territory is not economically neutral. The longer this kind of war lasts, the more it costs; the more it costs over a long period, the more it disturbs and distorts the economic machine, notably by the inflation and monetary depreciation it generates. The consequences of Operation Iraqi Freedom on the American economy seem, in appearance at present, to limit themselves to the sole question of the United States’ federal deficit, since the increase in military expenses, including those related to Iraq (total US federal budget for 2009: $3,100 billion, with a 7.5 percent increase in the Pentagon’s budget, which represents $515 billion, in addition to which a special supplement of $70 billion is reserved for Iraq and Afghanistan) has consequences.

The effects of this headlong rush:

A $410 billion deficit for the 2008 fiscal year (2.9 percent of American GNP) and another deficit of $407 billion for 2009 which the new administration will inherit next January. You will note that these sums are twice the size of the $162 billion deficit recorded for fiscal 2007 and approach the record $413 billion deficit recorded in 2004.

Dark dealings in the federal budget, such as the 22 percent reduction (to $2 billion only) in the amount available to help poor families pay their heating cost, or the 34 percent reduction in investments accorded Amtrak, the national passenger railway company.

But one should not trust appearances, for the deficit in American public finances interacts with the global economy as a whole. Since the American taxpayer does not have enough money to pay all the expenses of his federal government, that government turns abroad to borrow money and bring capital back to the USA. In this way, the savings of foreign countries are solicited – notably through the purchase of American Treasury bonds or other dollar-denominated assets – to cover purely American expenses. No comment up to there. Except that the foreign countries exporting capital to the USA are primarily Asian – with China in the lead – which countries profit from the financial flows created to align their currencies to the dollar – to undervalue it even – and thus put their own international trade competitiveness on steroids through that exchange rate chicanery. Moreover, overindebted and consequently overexposed vis-à-vis their creditors, the Americans are happy to reimburse them with worthless currency and consequently … to depress the dollar exchange rate – by reducing US interest rates – notably vis-à-vis other currencies, including the euro, but also against the British pound sterling.

And the Rest of the World in All This?

This vicious spiral (deficit plus dollar fall plus undervaluation of other currencies, like the Chinese yuan and the Japanese yen) has been ongoing for several years, but is especially dangerous:

For the USA’s creditors: The dollar’s nosedive entails the progressive devaluation of assets denominated in that currency; those who hold those assets find themselves less rich now than they were the day they bought them for more.

For the USA itself: How long will the USA’s creditors trust the USA and continue to cover its unbridled spending if the federal government seems too exposed through its abysmal debts? Moreover, the rise in foreign capital equates to increased dependence, even submission to foreign financial power. Finally, if $1,300 billion of subprimes generate $1,000 billion to $2,000 billion of losses and suffice to plummet global exchanges, what will happen when the markets realize that the war in Iraq could cost between $1,000 billion and $3,000 billion in the middle of a complete American economic recession, consequently with fewer fiscal revenues for the US federal government, consequently with more deficits?

For the Europeans, including the French: The depreciation of the dollar will never stop, since it results from a deliberate American strategy of lightening the federal government debt burden, a strategy that condemns the euro to an unremitting rise and European products to no longer being produced or even conceived in the euro zone, transforming said zone into an economic and social desert over the long term. More than ever, Europeans could hear: “The dollar is our currency; it’s your problem.”

Conclusion:

The Vietnam War, through its length and its cost, provoked the abandonment of the gold standard for the dollar, as well as strong American inflation, provoking a temporary crisis in the exercise of American hegemony over the world. The war in Iraq is taking the same path, with two exceptions, only worse: it combines with a mixed (American household and the federal government itself) overindebtedness and recession in the American economy against the background of a rampant global banking and financial crisis.

Consequently, all the ingredients for a crash followed by a wide-ranging and long-lasting depression (like the one of the 1930s) are potentially brought together. And this time the revision of American hegemony will not be temporary only. Will Osama bin Laden have won not only “his” war, but the war?

Americans Question the Legality of the Income Tax

(NaturalNews) There’s nothing that gets me all tingly like the coming of spring. It’s always been my favorite time of the year. Just one problem stands between me and total rapture – the need to complete a tax return and file it along with the money I always owe. This year the filing of the tax return feels particularly odious, because this year is when I began to find out that there is no law that actually requires me to file a return, and no law that actually requires me to pay tax on what I earn.

It all began when I saw the feature film/documentary, America: Freedom to Fascism directed by six time academy award nominee Aaron Russo, a self-described freedom fighter. The troublesome central point of this film is that Americans are not required by law to pay a federal income tax. It is overwhelming to think that such a fraud as this could have been perpetuated on the American people for so long. In the film, Russo expresses this feeling to IRS employees and simply asks them to cite where it says an unapportioned income tax is required of all of us. And incredibly, they can’t.

One telling segment involves Sheldon Cohen, former IRS commissioner, who goes so far as to reject Supreme Court rulings and the Constitution as benchmarks over what is legal with regard to taxation. The film also includes interviews with members of the Tax Honesty Movement as well as former IRS agents who concur that there is no law on the books that requires any US citizen to send the government part of his hard earned paycheck. Russo also highlights court cases where those accused of tax evasion have won their cases precisely because the prosecution could not provide evidence of a legal federal income tax law.

The film hammers you again and again with endless examples of people who figured out what was up and have not paid taxes for years. By the time it’s over, you feel like a big fool who has thrown money away year after year for nothing.

Since feeling foolish doesn’t do much for my ego, I got online to see for myself that there really is a law the says I have to pay income tax. Here’s what I found.

The Case of Joe Banister

On June 23, 2005, a federal jury found former IRS Criminal Division Special Agent and CPA Joseph Banister not guilty of all counts of criminal tax fraud and conspiracy related to actions he took on behalf of a California business owner who had openly defied the IRS over several years by discontinuing withholding of income and employment taxes from the paychecks of his employees.

The Department of Justice was unable to present any evidence that Banister had either acted in a conspiracy or had acted unlawfully when he advised Thompson that based on findings from his legal research, he had no obligation to withhold taxes from his employees. The Justice Department also concluded that when Banister filed corrected tax returns for Thompson claiming that Thompson’s taxable income was zero, rather than the $42,251 he had claimed on his first filing, he was operating within the framework of the law.

Banister, who was forced to resign from the IRS in 1999 after questioning IRS officials about their legal authority, gave Thompson’s employees a presentation in 2000 detaining his investigative research of US tax law. Findings were that not only did the IRS lack any authority to impose income taxes on workers, but there was no legal requirement for the business to withhold any taxes from the employee’s paychecks.

Banister is reportedly part of a nationwide effort seeking to force the US government to respond to a series of detailed legal Petitions for Redress of Grievances directly challenging the authority of the IRS. The We The People Foundation has initiated a landmark lawsuit with 2000 plaintiffs against the government because it has refused to answer the Petitions. This Right-To-Petition lawsuit, of which Banister is a plaintiff, is the first time in the history of the US that the courts have been asked to define the meaning of the final ten words of the First Amendment.

Conclusions of the We The People Foundation

The website of the We The People Foundation begins with the premise that there is no law that requires most citizens to file and pay federal income taxes. They summarize the key steps of their argument:

There is a federal law that imposes a requirement upon some citizens and foreigners to file and pay an income tax. The question is, to what proportion of citizens does the requirement apply? We The People answers that question with an examination of statutes and regulations, despite the lack of direction supplied by the IRS.

They conclude that “no tax liability applies to the vast majority of citizens, who have been misled into believing they must file and pay income taxes noted in section 61, the section that calls for determination of “gross income”. Instead, tax liability applies to US citizens only insofar as they have foreign earned income. This tax liability also applies to aliens and foreign companies doing business in the US. In fact, the Secretary of the Treasury acknowledged that Form 255 was the form most frequently required to be filed by citizens, and only if they had foreign income.

They elaborate, “We can see that the government, by means of such a circuitous and disconnected trail of rules and regulations, has made it extremely difficult for most ordinary people to figure out that they are not liable for the income tax. We can see that the government is duping most people into voluntarily filing returns, assessing themselves, waiving their 5th amendment rights, and erroneously paying an income tax for which they are not liable.” They note that statutes and regulations for other taxes are clearly stated, without ambiguity, concluding that “This trickery and deception serves a function of avoiding violations of the Constitution which would be more transparent otherwise.”

Additionally, they conclude that “employers are being duped into submitting false information about most employees, withholding their money, making it appear they are liable, and thereby putting them on the defensive, since they must then dispute that their wages are taxable.”

Finally, a look at the laws regarding liability for the Social Security tax reveals that they are derived from the International Labor Agreement of the 1930s and do not apply to most US citizens, but to aliens and to some citizens based on foreign income or income from US overseas possessions.

And Then There’s Irwin Schiff

Irwin Schiff is billed as the nation’s leading authority on income tax and how the government illegally collects it. He is the motivating factor of the Tax Honest Movement, and claims to have written more books on the subject than any other American. His most recent book The Federal Mafia promises to show you how you can immediately stop having income taxes taken from your pay, get back every dime you paid in income taxes this year, stop IRS agents from seizing your property because they have no power to do so, and break “offer and compromise” agreements you might have made with the IRS, since these agreements were entered into on the basis of fraud and intimidation.

Among the arguments raised by Schiff are: (1) that no statutory deficiency in Federal income tax can exist until an assessment has been made (2) that no tax assessment can be made unless a tax return has been voluntarily filed (3) that the IRS, in enforcing the income tax seeks to impose a tax not authorized by the taxing clauses of the US Constitution (4) that the US has no jurisdiction, and (5) that the US Tax Court is not a court.

Another argument made by Schiff is that on the Form 1040, you should report ‘zero’ income regardless of how much you received in: wages, commissions, interest, alimony, capital gains or from operating a business. For tax purposes, ‘income’ only means corporate ‘profit’. Therefore, no individual receives anything that is reportable as ‘income’. This argument has been rejected by the lower courts, as well as the US court of appeals.

What Schiff is seeking to accomplish will not be accomplished easily. In the 1970’s, Schiff made an appearance on The Tomorrow Show where he argued his views on federal income tax. This appearance was followed six days later by his being charged for willful failure to file tax returns, for which he was convicted. During the 1980’s and 90’s additional convictions were obtained and upheld, proving that what Schiff is seeking to do will not be done easily.

In February, 2006, at the age of 78 years, Schiff was sentenced to 12 years, 7 months in prison and was ordered to pay over $4.2 million in restitution to the IRS. He was also sentenced to an additional 12 months for contempt of court.

About the author

Barbara is a school psychologist, a published author in the area of personal finance, a breast cancer survivor using “alternative” treatments, a born existentialist, and a student of nature and all things natural.

Ron Paul–the only candidate taking a stand on the looming North American Union (NAU). Learn more.

The North American Union – You Could Be Voting Your Rights Away

(NaturalNews) One issue that is conspicuously absent from the rhetoric of the presidential candidates is the North American Union (NAU). The questions of immigration and border security are frequently raised and the candidates claim to realize the need for a clear immigration policy and effort to secure the borders of the United States. Yet when you begin to understand the purposes of the North American Union and the agenda of its proponents, you will understand why this will never happen. And you may also begin to see that you are being manipulated by the major candidates.

The NAU, a goal of the Council on Foreign Relations, follows a plan laid out by Robert Pastor. It is currently promoted by the Bush administration to expand the size and scope of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement). Its goal is to effectively create a North American trading block by erasing the borders between the U.S., Mexico and Canada resulting in free, unimpeded movement of people and goods across those borders. It is also a political union that would integrate the governments of the three countries. And clearly it is an economic union with the intention of equalizing the wages and standard of living of all but the ruling elitists.

Sounds a lot like the European Union, doesn’t it? There are even plans for a common currency called the amero. But there is one glaring difference. The people of the United States have never been asked if they want to become integrated with Mexico and Canada, two countries of enormously different laws, culture, economic systems, standards of living, and acceptance of the role of government.

The European Union followed years of open debate at all levels, intense coverage of the ramifications and implications in major media, and a vote of the people.

History and Origins of NAU

President Bush signed the Declaration of Quebec City in April, 2001, making a “commitment to hemispheric integration”. After Hugo Chavez of Venezuela voiced opposition, these plans were scaled back to include only North America.

The Independent Task Force on North America, a project organized by the Council on Foreign Relations and co-chaired by Robert Pastor, was launched in October, 2004. This group published two documents: Trinational Call for a North American Economic and Security Community by 2010 (March, 2005), and its final report Building a North American Community (May, 2005). This Task Force had as its central recommendation the establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community. The boundaries of this community would be defined by a common external tariff and outer security perimeter. Also called for is the replacing of all three branches of the US government with a North American version effectively ending U.S. representative government.

In March 2005, at their summit meeting in Waco, Texas; Bush, President Fox of Mexico and Prime Minister Martin of Canada issued a joint statement announcing the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). The creation of this agreement was never submitted to Congress for discussion or decision. The U.S. Department of Commerce merely created a new division implementing working groups to advance a North American Union agenda. This agenda included movement of goods, finances, e-commerce, environment, business facilitation, food and agriculture, and health. The result is an action agreement to be implemented immediately and directly by regulations, without any envisioned Congressional debate or oversight.

In September 2006, Rep. Virgil Goode (Va), Rep. Ron Paul (Tx), Rep. Walter Jones (NC), and Rep. Tom Tancredo (Co) introduced House Concurrent Resolution 487, expressing concerns about the NAU. Resolution was passed by the House of Representatives with the Senate concurring that the U.S. should not enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada; the U.S. should not engage in the construction of the NAFTA Superhighway System, and the President should indicate strong opposition to these or any other proposals that threaten the sovereignty of the U.S.

In October 2006, Congressman Paul formally denounced the formation of the SPP and the plans for the North American Union and the SPP as “an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments”. Paul says that the real issue raised by the SPP is nation sovereignty. “Once again, decisions that affect millions of Americans are not being made by those Americans themselves, or even by their elected representatives in Congress. Instead, a handful of elites use their government connections to bypass national legislatures and ignore our Constitution – which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade.” In this speech Paul predicts that the NAU will become a sleeper issue for the 2008 election, stating that “any movement toward a NAU diminishes the ability of average Americans to influence the laws under which they must live.”

A report authored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIC) was presented to all three governments in September 2007. CSIC is a political influence group of internationalists who have crafted many of the government policies of the past several years. At the core of the report is its plan for America’s future, North American “economic integration” and “labor mobility”. The plan for government integration is also revealed as the report states: “to remain competitive in the global economy, policymakers must devise forward-looking, collaborative policies that integrate governments”. Also called for is the adoption of “unified North American regulatory standards”.

Features of NAU:

The Trans-Texas Corridor and the NAFTA Superhighway

The NAFTA Superhighway and its entry point at the trans-Texas corridor were first proposed in 2002. It consists of a 1,200 foot wide highway that also carries utilities such as electricity, petroleum and water as well as railway tracks and fiber-optic cables. When completed, the new road will allow containers from the Far East to enter the U.S. through the Mexican port of Lazaro Cardenas, bypassing the Longshoreman’s Union. With Mexican drivers and without the involvement of the teamsters union, the Mexican trucks will drive straight into the heart of the US, crossing the border in fast lanes, and checked only by a new electronic system. The first customs stop will be the new Smart Port complex in Kansas City. From there the trucks may disperse into the U.S. or continue northward into Canada, again crossing the border with only an electronic checkpoint.

Millions of acres of land for the completion of this highway will be taken under the new laws of eminent domain.

A government pilot program has allowed Mexican trucking companies to make deliveries anywhere in the U.S. since April 2007, even before the completion of the superhighway. There is no limit on the number of trucks the 100 companies in the pilot program can operate. Eventually all Mexican trucking companies are to be granted the same access. These Mexican drivers are paid substantially less that their U.S. counterparts, their operations are not regulated, and they are driving on U.S. taxpayer subsidized roads.

The Amero

This is the name of what may be the North American Union’s counterpart to the euro. It was first proposed by Canadian economist Herbert G. Grubel in his book The Case for the Amero published in 1999, the same year the euro became currency. Robert Pastor supported Grubel’s idea in his book Toward A North American Community published in 2001. If implemented, the Amero’s debut may come later in the progression of the NAU, with exchange rates that depend on market forces at the time, after the economies of the three countries have been integrated and homogenized.

The North American Plan for Avian and Pandemic Influenza

Finalized and released at the September 2007 summit of the SPP, this plan calls for a “comprehensive coordinated North American approach during outbreaks of influenza.” It gives authority to international officials “beyond the health sector to include a coordinated approach to critical infrastructure protection,” including “border and transportation issues”.

It sets up a “senior level Coordinating Body to facilitate the effective planning and preparedness within North America for a possible outbreak of avian and/or human influenza pandemic under the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP).” The SPP is to act as “decision-makers.” “The chair of the SPP Coordinating Body will rotate between each national authority on a yearly basis” resulting in foreign decision making for Americans in two out of every three years.

The plan suggests that these powers will include “the use of antivirals and vaccines… social distancing measures, including school closures and the prohibition of community gatherings, isolation and quarantine.”

Council on Foreign Relations

Since its inception in 1921, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has attracted men and women of power and influence. Its stated intentions are to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty of the national independence of the United States. The ultimate, declared aim of the CFR is to create a one-world government, and to make the U.S. a part of it. The stated intentions of the CFR are clearly treasonous to the U.S. Constitution.

The influence of the CFR is wide. Not only does it have members in the U.S. government, but its influence has also spread to other vital areas of American life. Members have run, or are running, NBC and CBS, the New York Times, and The Washington Post, and many other important newspapers. The leaders of Time, Newsweek, Fortune, Business Week, and numerous other publications are CFR members.

The organization’s members also dominate the political world. U.S. presidents since Franklin Roosevelt have been CFR members with the exception of Ronald Reagan. The organization’s members also dominate
the academic world, top corporations, unions and military. They are on the board of directors of the Federal Reserve.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Rudy Guiliani are all either members of the CFR or have close ties with it. Mike Huckabee is reportedly not a member, but following his interaction with the group in September, he has become a favored candidate in the eyes of the media. Republican Ron Paul is the only remaining significant candidate who does not have ties with the CFR. He has has voiced opposition to the NAU for several years.

Where Do You Stand on This Issue?

There is an ideological battle being waged between the forces supporting globalism and the forces supporting national sovereignty. If you plan to participate in the 2008 presidential election, you will need to answer these questions for yourself: Do you believe in the timelessness of the Constitution, or do you believe that the Constitution has served its usefulness and it’s time for another model for government? Are you in favor of international government and more regulation by the United Nations, or do you favor continuation of the institutions that have served the U.S. in the past? Do you want big government with its attendant costs and regulations, or do you favor small government that allows for self direction?

About the author

Barbara Minton is a school psychologist by trade, a published author in the area of personal finance, a breast cancer survivor using “alternative” treatments, a born existentialist, and a student of nature and all things natural.

When the police grow this large, anyone not in the police will become a criminal.

WHY is this not front page news?

WHY is this being conducted through private-sector partnerships, not subject to public scrutiny?

WHY is there no outrage?

WHY is our government preparing to declare martial law? Will it happen, say, right before the election?

Write to your newspapers, people. Do not take this lying down. Then vote Ron Paul.

Oh, you think a woman will stop this? Clinton was on the board of Wal-Mart for 6 years while her husband was governor of Arkansas (discussed on Bill Moyer’s journal–I get the podcasts). Do you think she really cares about people? What has Wal-Mart done for wages, job stability, and quality of life for your community?

Today, more than 23,000 representatives of private industry are working quietly with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The members of this rapidly growing group, called InfraGard, receive secret warnings of terrorist threats before the public does — and, at least on one occasion, before elected officials. In return, they provide information to the government, which alarms the ACLU. But there may be more to it than that. One business executive, who showed me his InfraGard card, told me they have permission to “shoot to kill” in the event of martial law. InfraGard is “a child of the FBI,” says Michael Hershman, the chairman of the advisory board of the InfraGard National Members Alliance and CEO of the Fairfax Group, an international consulting firm.

InfraGard started in Cleveland back in 1996, when the private sector there cooperated with the FBI to investigate cyber threats.

“Then the FBI cloned it,” says Phyllis Schneck, chairman of the board of directors of the InfraGard National Members Alliance, and the prime mover behind the growth of InfraGard over the last several years.

InfraGard itself is still an FBI operation, with FBI agents in each state overseeing the local InfraGard chapters. (There are now eighty-six of them.) The alliance is a nonprofit organization of private sector InfraGard members.

“We are the owners, operators, and experts of our critical infrastructure, from the CEO of a large company in agriculture or high finance to the guy who turns the valve at the water utility,” says Schneck, who by day is the vice president of research integration at Secure Computing.

“At its most basic level, InfraGard is a partnership between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the private sector,” the InfraGard website states. “InfraGard chapters are geographically linked with FBI Field Office territories.”

In November 2001, InfraGard had around 1,700 members. As of late January, InfraGard had 23,682 members, according to its website, http://www.infragard.net, which adds that “350 of our nation’s Fortune 500 have a representative in InfraGard.”

To join, each person must be sponsored by “an existing InfraGard member, chapter, or partner organization.” The FBI then vets the applicant. On the application form, prospective members are asked which aspect of the critical infrastructure their organization deals with. These include: agriculture, banking and finance, the chemical industry, defense, energy, food, information and telecommunications, law enforcement, public health, and transportation.

FBI Director Robert Mueller addressed an InfraGard convention on August 9, 2005. At that time, the group had less than half as many members as it does today. “To date, there are more than 11,000 members of InfraGard,” he said. “From our perspective that amounts to 11,000 contacts . . . and 11,000 partners in our mission to protect America.” He added a little later, “Those of you in the private sector are the first line of defense.”

He urged InfraGard members to contact the FBI if they “note suspicious activity or an unusual event.” And he said they could sic the FBI on “disgruntled employees who will use knowledge gained on the job against their employers.”

In an interview with InfraGard after the conference, which is featured prominently on the InfraGard members’ website, Mueller says: “It’s a great program.”

The ACLU is not so sanguine.

“There is evidence that InfraGard may be closer to a corporate TIPS program, turning private-sector corporations — some of which may be in a position to observe the activities of millions of individual customers — into surrogate eyes and ears for the FBI,” the ACLU warned in its August 2004 report The Surveillance-Industrial Complex: How the American Government Is Conscripting Businesses and Individuals in the Construction of a Surveillance Society.

InfraGard is not readily accessible to the general public. Its communications with the FBI and Homeland Security are beyond the reach of the Freedom of Information Act under the “trade secrets” exemption, its website says. And any conversation with the public or the media is supposed to be carefully rehearsed.

“The interests of InfraGard must be protected whenever presented to non-InfraGard members,” the website states. “During interviews with members of the press, controlling the image of InfraGard being presented can be difficult. Proper preparation for the interview will minimize the risk of embarrassment. . . . The InfraGard leadership and the local FBI representative should review the submitted questions, agree on the predilection of the answers, and identify the appropriate interviewee. . . . Tailor answers to the expected audience. . . . Questions concerning sensitive information should be avoided.”

One of the advantages of InfraGard, according to its leading members, is that the FBI gives them a heads-up on a secure portal about any threatening information related to infrastructure disruption or terrorism.

The InfraGard website advertises this. In its list of benefits of joining InfraGard, it states: “Gain access to an FBI secure communication network complete with VPN encrypted website, webmail, listservs, message boards, and much more.”

“We get very easy access to secure information that only goes to InfraGard members,” Schneck says. “People are happy to be in the know.”

On November 1, 2001, the FBI had information about a potential threat to the bridges of California. The alert went out to the InfraGard membership. Enron was notified, and so, too, was Barry Davis, who worked for Morgan Stanley. He notified his brother Gray, the governor of California.

“He said his brother talked to him before the FBI,” recalls Steve Maviglio, who was Davis’s press secretary at the time. “And the governor got a lot of grief for releasing the information. In his defense, he said, ‘I was on the phone with my brother, who is an investment banker. And if he knows, why shouldn’t the public know?’ ”

Maviglio still sounds perturbed about this: “You’d think an elected official would be the first to know, not the last.”

In return for being in the know, InfraGard members cooperate with the FBI and Homeland Security. “InfraGard members have contributed to about 100 FBI cases,” Schneck says. “What InfraGard brings you is reach into the regional and local communities. We are a 22,000-member vetted body of subject-matter experts that reaches across seventeen matrixes. All the different stovepipes can connect with InfraGard.”

Schneck is proud of the relationships the InfraGard Members Alliance has built with the FBI. “If you had to call 1-800-FBI, you probably wouldn’t bother,” she says. “But if you knew Joe from a local meeting you had with him over a donut, you might call them. Either to give or to get. We want everyone to have a little black book.”

This black book may come in handy in times of an emergency. “On the back of each membership card,” Schneck says, “we have all the numbers you’d need: for Homeland Security, for the FBI, for the cyber center. And by calling up as an InfraGard member, you will be listened to.” She also says that members would have an easier time obtaining a “special telecommunications card that will enable your call to go through when others will not.”

This special status concerns the ACLU.

“The FBI should not be creating a privileged class of Americans who get special treatment,” says Jay Stanley, public education director of the ACLU’s technology and liberty program. “There’s no ‘business class’ in law enforcement. If there’s information the FBI can share with 22,000 corporate bigwigs, why don’t they just share it with the public? That’s who their real ‘special relationship’ is supposed to be with. Secrecy is not a party favor to be given out to friends. . . . This bears a disturbing resemblance to the FBI’s handing out ‘goodies’ to corporations in return for folding them into its domestic surveillance machinery.”

When the government raises its alert levels, InfraGard is in the loop. For instance, in a press release on February 7, 2003, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General announced that the national alert level was being raised from yellow to orange. They then listed “additional steps” that agencies were taking to “increase their protective measures.” One of those steps was to “provide alert information to InfraGard program.”

“They’re very much looped into our readiness capability,” says Amy Kudwa, spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security. “We provide speakers, as well as do joint presentations [with the FBI]. We also train alongside them, and they have participated in readiness exercises.”

On May 9, 2007, George Bush issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 entitled “National Continuity Policy.” In it, he instructed the Secretary of Homeland Security to coordinate with “private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to provide for the delivery of essential services during an emergency.”

Asked if the InfraGard National Members Alliance was involved with these plans, Schneck said it was “not directly participating at this point.” Hershman, chairman of the group’s advisory board, however, said that it was.

InfraGard members, sometimes hundreds at a time, have been used in “national emergency preparation drills,” Schneck acknowledges.

“In case something happens, everybody is ready,” says Norm Arendt, the head of the Madison, Wisconsin, chapter of InfraGard, and the safety director for the consulting firm Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. “There’s been lots of discussions about what happens under an emergency.”

One business owner in the United States tells me that InfraGard members are being advised on how to prepare for a martial law situation — and what their role might be. He showed me his InfraGard card, with his name and e-mail address on the front, along with the InfraGard logo and its slogan, “Partnership for Protection.” On the back of the card were the emergency numbers that Schneck mentioned.

This business owner says he attended a small InfraGard meeting where agents of the FBI and Homeland Security discussed in astonishing detail what InfraGard members may be called upon to do.

“The meeting started off innocuously enough, with the speakers talking about corporate espionage,” he says. “From there, it just progressed. All of a sudden we were knee deep in what was expected of us when martial law is declared. We were expected to share all our resources, but in return we’d be given specific benefits.” These included, he says, the ability to travel in restricted areas and to get people out. But that’s not all.

“Then they said when — not if — martial law is declared, it was our responsibility to protect our portion of the infrastructure, and if we had to use deadly force to protect it, we couldn’t be prosecuted,” he says.

I was able to confirm that the meeting took place where he said it had, and that the FBI and Homeland Security did make presentations there. One InfraGard member who attended that meeting denies that the subject of lethal force came up. But the whistleblower is 100 percent certain of it. “I have nothing to gain by telling you this, and everything to lose,” he adds. “I’m so nervous about this, and I’m not someone who gets nervous.”

Though Schneck says that FBI and Homeland Security agents do make presentations to InfraGard, she denies that InfraGard members would have any civil patrol or law enforcement functions. “I have never heard of InfraGard members being told to use lethal force anywhere,” Schneck says.

But one other InfraGard member corroborated the whistleblower’s account, and another would not deny it.

Christine Moerke is a business continuity consultant for Alliant Energy in Madison, Wisconsin. She says she’s an InfraGard member, and she confirms that she has attended InfraGard meetings that went into the details about what kind of civil patrol function — including engaging in lethal force — that InfraGard members may be called upon to perform.

“There have been discussions like that, that I’ve heard of and participated in,” she says.

Curt Haugen is CEO of S’Curo Group, a company that does “strategic planning, business continuity planning and disaster recovery, physical and IT security, policy development, internal control, personnel selection, and travel safety,” according to its website. Haugen tells me he is a former FBI agent and that he has been an InfraGard member for many years. He is a huge booster. “It’s the only true organization where there is the public-private partnership,” he says. “It’s all who knows who. You know a face, you trust a face. That’s what makes it work.”

He says InfraGard “absolutely” does emergency preparedness exercises. When I ask about discussions the FBI and Homeland Security have had with InfraGard members about their use of lethal force, he says: “That much I cannot comment on. But as a private citizen, you have the right to use force if you feel threatened.”

“We were assured that if we were forced to kill someone to protect our infrastructure, there would be no repercussions,” the whistleblower says. “It gave me goose bumps. It chilled me to the bone.”

I’m really enjoying receiving Jon Rappoport’s email newsletters and I wished I’d joined earlier. Here’s a great post. He all but endorses Ron Paul, but leaves it to you to make the key inferences about what this election is really about, or should be about: getting the government out of people’s lives and wallets. I believe more in social welfare than he does, however, and I do believe there should be a nationalized health insurance (one not in the pocket of Big Pharma, to boot). There’s no reason why a social safety net (that is, an ECONOMIC safety net) has to be the same thing as state-sponsored fascism. We can have economic, communal, municipal security without imperiling our liberties. It’s called using our tax dollars to build housing and schools, not prisons, and stop paying the big bankers at the Federal Reserve to print our currency. Getting out of Iraq would also help balance the books immensely.

—

PLATITUDES OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN

FEBRUARY 4, 2008. Let’s run down the short list:

CHANGE. Everyone suddenly started mouthing that one right after Obama won Iowa.

HOPE.

WASHINGTON IS BROKEN.

EXPERIENCE.

I’LL BE READY ON DAY ONE.

Since when is the federal government supposed to be in charge of hope and change? I vaguely recall the whole idea behind the Constitution was limiting the size and influence of the government, thereby guaranteeing individual freedom. Of course, that was probably just a dream I had.

Those who fondly remember JFK will make three basic assertions about his plans:

HE WANTED TO SHATTER THE CIA INTO A MILLION PIECES.

HE WANTED TO GET OUT OF VIETNAM.

HE WANTED TO TAKE THE POWER TO COIN MONEY AWAY FROM THE FEDERAL RESERVE AND PUT IT BACK IN THE HANDS OF CONGRESS.

Assuming JFK really wanted to accomplish these goals, it was all about shrinking the role of government.

Obama. Hillary. McCain. Mitt. When out of their mouths we get various high-flying sentiments, they are mostly talking about government taking the lead.

Why should government take the lead?

Why should people look to government to inspire them?

Might it be because people can’t inspire themselves?

In that case, the problem lies elsewhere, and the solution does, too.

It reminds me of Christmas. The time for giving. That’s the only day for giving? People need redoubled shopping opportunities and more debt and a story about a child’s birth to motivate them?

People need an election to galvanize them?

Washington is not broken because the two sides of the aisle are hammering each other. It’s not broken simply because special interests are controlling the agenda. It’s broken because it was never meant to be this big and this much trouble.

Example: Why in the world does the FDA have the power to give approval to new medical drugs on the basis of whether they’re effective? That’s none of their business. The consumer can decide that on his own. We don’t need a (corrupt) federal agency to make rulings of this kind.

Update on Hillary: AP is reporting she suggests the possibility of garnishing the wages of people who’d refuse her universal healthcare plan once it is in effect.

How do you like them apples?

You work for a company. Your employer is paying into the universal health plan (because he has to). You, however, say, “No thanks, I don’t want to be insured under this plan.” Boom. Your wages are garnished.

It takes everyone (under the gun) to pay into the plan so “it is affordable,” according to Hillary.

Beautiful.

Yeah, It Takes a Village, but the village has to be under the control of a dictator.

OK–Listen up, New Yorkers. Clinton can’t win her home state. That would send a really bad message. She hasn’t been a great senator and, besides, we really don’t want her for President. Why don’t we want her for President? Three reasons out of many: 1) She is relying on people not to think about her policy proposals or her husband’s administration and just think of the fact that “she’s a woman” and we need a woman president–which is true, we should get a woman president soon, like in many other nations, but not one that (reason 2) continues a dynasty in the White House. I was brought up in a country where anyone could be president, there were no dynasties and no aristocracy or plutocracy where a select few took turns trading power among themselves.

Therefore, Obama needs an overwhelming show of support to beat out Clinton. A good show beating Clinton in her home state (as indicated on TV that day and with exit polls, etc.) will hopefully influence other states to push Clinton out as well, whereas a good showing by Clinton in her “home” state (uh, she ran for Senate in NY the first time saying publicly that she was not using it as a stepping-stone to presidency–how not manipulative at all) would not so tacitly endorse her to other states–it would send the message that New Yorkers think she’s done a “good job” as Senator and would make a good president, neither of which is true.

New York, Get Clinton Out of the Race!

New York, Vote Obama for the Primaries!

New York, Vote Ron Paul in the General Election!

Do not vote McCain–Giuliani endorsed McCain so he could try to get on McCain’s ticket later as his running mate. Keeping Giuliani out of the White House now means keeping McCain out. Sorry, McCain, politics is the bedfellows you keep.

My apologies to Ron Paul as well–but we need to get Clinton out on the democratic side first before we can really vote for Paul. A Clinton vs. Paul general election would be harder to fight than a Paul v. Obama election. Really, if we had more than a stupid two-party system, this “game plan” calculation wouldn’t be necessary. Ah, well, once they put in electronic voting machines everywhere, it will barely matter who anyone votes for, and campaign finance will be more of a joke than it is already. Paper ballots now! It’s a big country, yes, but do you really need to know by midnight who won? Are we in that much turmoil that power can’t transition calmly if it takes a couple of days?

A great article by Ron Paul. Although I do not agree with everything he speaks of here–especially his invocation of Ayn Rand–at least he is discussing and questioning the serious philosophical underpinnings no other candidate seems to be addressing. No other candidate is even mentioning Orwell, despite how Orwellian our times have become–they want to put us further in the mire and take away more of our liberties, not preserve us from them.

In my opinion, government should promote economic rights, and then step out of the social/cultural/educational arena almost entirely (i.e., publicly funded schools and libraries are good, but not when moral police determine curriculums and what those institutions get to buy–which infringes on your right to do research and get information, and your freedom of speech). The government should not have anything to say about sexual acts, abortion, or anything else that does not violate someone else’s health or safety. (Yes, I know Paul is pro-life; I also know that he wouldn’t waste his political energy–or spend his “political capital”–making it a major issue to try to actively push through a law banning it. If anything, he’s the most pro-health freedom candidate out there, wanting to make it very hard for the FDA to [as it is currently trying to do] limit our access to herbs and alternative therapies not monopolized by Big Pharma and their lobbyists).

What’s impressive here is that Paul is an old-school public civil servant, not a new-school spin-dominated “pol.” He is concerned about checking the powers of government, not enlarging it, as Bush has done so egregiously (with exploding the power of the executive and with signing statements, and now with probably knowingly allowing his government to mislead the public–if not overtly lie to the public–concerning the nature of CIA torture and the existence of taped evidence thereof). Paul is the only candidate who seems actually concerned about governance, not media damage control or PR doctoring of mass opinion, or of maintaining propaganda. For this alone, he represents true freethinking and change, and a step in the right direction, even if he does not support as much of an economic safety net as I would like. At least, unlike the other candidates–including the democrats–he doesn’t get in the quagmire of promising what he can’t deliver.

Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn’t be called taxes, they’d be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less.

“…man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”Ronald Reagan

We’ve all heard the words democracy and freedom used countless times, especially in the context of our invasion of Iraq.They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different.

George Orwell wrote about “meaningless words” that are endlessly repeated in the political arena*.Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated.In Orwell’s view, political words were “Often used in a consciously dishonest way.”Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions.In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language.As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good.

The problem is that democracy is not freedom.Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom.Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere.James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, “There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.”John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect pre-existing rights.Yet how many Americans know that the word “democracy” is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents?

A truly democratic election in Iraq, without U.S. interference and U.S. puppet candidates, almost certainly would result in the creation of a Shiite theocracy.Shiite majority rule in Iraq might well mean the complete political, economic, and social subjugation of the minority Kurd and Sunni Arab populations.Such an outcome would be democratic, but would it be free?Would the Kurds and Sunnis consider themselves free?The administration talks about democracy in Iraq, but is it prepared to accept a democratically-elected Iraqi government no matter what its attitude toward the U.S. occupation?Hardly. For all our talk about freedom and democracy, the truth is we haveno idea whether Iraqis will be free in the future.They’re certainly not free while a foreign army occupies their country.The real test is not whether Iraq adopts a democratic, pro-western government, but rather whether ordinary Iraqis can lead their personal, religious, social, and business lives without interference from government.

Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion.Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world.The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else.States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud.For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers.This reflected the founders’ belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King.

Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive.If nothing else, government action requires taxes.If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn’t be called taxes, they’d be called donations.If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion.So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less.

The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth.To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away.But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her) demolished this argument by explaining how such “freedom” for some is possible only when government takes freedoms away from others.In other words, government claims on the lives and property of those who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are coercive– and thus incompatible with freedom.“Liberalism,” which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government.

The political right equates freedom with national greatness brought about through military strength.Like the left, modern conservatives favor an all-powerful central state– but for militarism, corporatism, and faith-based welfarism.Unlike the Taft-Goldwater conservatives of yesteryear, today’s Republicans are eager to expand government spending, increase the federal police apparatus, and intervene militarily around the world.The last tenuous links between conservatives and support for smaller government have been severed. “Conservatism,” which once meant respect for tradition and distrust of active government, has transformed into big-government utopian grandiosity.

Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in politics.If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us.We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy, and remind ourselves that the Constitution places limits on government that no majority can overrule.We must resist any use of the word “freedom” to describe state action.We must reject the current meaningless designations of “liberals” and “conservatives,” in favor of an accurate term for both: statists.

Every politician on earth claims to support freedom.The problem is so few of them understand the simple meaning of the word.

A comment on how the media is treating this election, ignoring Ron Paul (which, if most poeple knew for the economic and diplomatic changes he is for, would vote for him) and making the de facto rae Hillary or Obama or both v. Giuliani.

People aren’t getting informed, they’re just getting influenced. There’s a big difference between being educated and being influenced. And I think we have a lot of influenced people; I wouldn’t say we have a lot of educated people. The consequences for democracy are huge. When once in democracy we believed we needed a commonly, communally educated populace, now we have sold that ideal out and are settling for an influenced population, a highly suggestible population who will go along with pretty much anything as long as you sell it to them.

December 19, 2007

I am not against a single-payer system, but if it’s going to have forced vaccinations and forced psychiatric screenings, then, yes, I guess I can change my opinion. It’s a sign of maturity, is it not, to change your opinions when you see how the tide is going?

This week Congress is again grasping for more control over the health of American children with the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Parents who think federally subsidized health care might be a good idea should be careful what they wish for.

Despite political rhetoric about a War on Drugs, federally funded programs result in far more teenage drug use than the most successful pill pusher on the playground. These pills are given out as a result of dubious universal mental health screening programs for school children, supposedly directed toward finding mental disorders or suicidal tendencies. The use of antipsychotic medication in children has increased fivefold between 1995 and 2002. More than 2.5 million children are now taking these medications, and many children are taking multiple drugs at one time.

With universal mental health screening being implemented in schools, pharmaceutical companies stand to increase their customer base even more, and many parents are rightfully concerned. Opponents of one such program, called TeenScreen, claim it wrongly diagnoses children as much as 84% of the time, often incorrectly labeling them, resulting in the assigning of medications that can be very damaging. While we are still awaiting evidence that there are benefits to mental health screening programs, evidence that these drugs actually cause violent psychotic episodes is mounting.

Many parents have very valid concerns about the drugs to which a child labeled as “suicidal” or “depressed,” or even ADHD, could be subjected. Of further concern is the subjectivity of diagnosis of mental health disorders. The symptoms of ADHD are strikingly similar to indications that a child is gifted, and bored in an unchallenging classroom. In fact, these programs, and many of the syndromes they attempt to screen for, are highly questionable. Parents are wise to question them.

As it stands now, parental consent is required for these screening programs, but in some cases mere passive consent is legal. Passive consent is obtained when a parent receives a consent form and fails to object to the screening. In other words, failure to reply is considered affirmative consent. In fact, TeenScreen advocates incorporating their program into the curriculum as a way to by-pass any consent requirement. These universal, or mandatory, screening programs being called for by TeenScreen and the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health should be resisted.

Consent must be express, written, voluntary and informed. Programs that refuse to give parents this amount of respect, should not receive federal funding. Moreover, parents should not be pressured into screening or drugging their children with the threat that not doing so constitutes child abuse or neglect. My bill, The Parental Consent Act of 2007 is aimed at stopping federal funding of these programs.

We don’t need a village, a bureaucrat, or the pharmaceutical industry raising our children. That’s what parents need to be doing.

US & world politics we may not be able to change, but we can take charge of our health–and the issues are connected, deeply. I’ll try to compactly explain how & why it is so important (& possible) for you to take steps now to inform yourself and preserve your health, so that you can preserve your life, take care of yourself and the community you live in.

These aren’t things you will hear on The Nightly News or even PBS. That’s because those are corporations (Even the Corporation for Public Broadcasting) & all corporations uphold & worship only one thing– the Almighty Dollar. They want you to consume, and if you can’t or won’t, they’ll try to shred your self-esteem to bits. We must recognize that “better stuff” doesnot equal a “better life.” Although we are in an inflationary society that penalizes savings, we must learn how to provide for ourselves–and one of the most important ways to do this is through establishing our good health. Health is the wealth the elite do not want the masses to have.

So…if we accept the premise that the media is highly controlled, as are the schools, as is everything we learn…we know how providing alternate information or dissenting information can be a threat, even in this supposed “democracy.”

There is a bill–S. 1959– before the Senate now (please write or call your Senators) that supposedly quite innocently wises to establish a Committee-something-to-other to study the rise of “homegrown terrorism” and “violent radicalization.” However, this proposed law (we citizens still have the power to stop it) is really vague and can be used to shred the free speech rights of casically anyone who might be a little “fringe.” This “Committee” will try to get support from Academia to legitimate its claims–prove its hypothesis for them–that “homegrown terrorism” is a really big problem, far bigger than the 45 million Americans, say, without health insurance.

Things are getting dark in America, and yes, I want to be alarmist. Here I am passing on what I am reading from multiple sources about how bad things are now and how bad they are likely to get in “the future”–and let’s just say that it’s not a future that will be for everyone to participate in. And I don’t just mean the exclusion of some people from buying a house or retiring early. I mean the killing off the people, though:

And how will people be controlled? This will be the icing on the cake. Already we have show trials in Guantanamo (no Geneva convention rights–no charges against “enemy combatants”–a test for here).

Plus show trials here:

–“plea bargains”

–the mass imprisonment of the poor, unemployed, and (mostly) nonwhite

–the 4th Amendment is dead–courtesy of the “Patriot” Act–Americans need to understand what this act means–this act was swept through Congress before they could read it, conveniently in the hysteria that set in during the few months after the events of 9/11/2001. The FBI can enter your home and search it when you are not around and they do not have to warn you, notify you, or have a warrant. This is insanity. Everyone is a potential criminal, and when that begins to be carried out, by searching us all, it will not be pretty.

The fact of the matter is that more prisons than schools are being built today in America–they can’t build them fast enough, at huge profits for (sub) contractors. And–hold on to your chair–concentration camps–“civilian labor camps”–are being built in America. By the way, in case of emergency, natural or man made, FEMA can take hold and declare martial law. No Constitution involved or required.

A few more points:

>>In 2005, to take effect in May 2008, something called the “REAL ID” was passed, because apparently terrorism is such a huge problem (more than, say, the 40,000 homeless in New York City alone). States will be pressured to force this National ID card onto its citizens because otherwise they will not get Federal Funding. If you, John Q. Citizen, do not submit to this card, you will not be allowed to: enter a Federal/Public Building, take a train, or take a plane. Can anyone say, “Police state”? “Papers, please!”

>>When this fascism does not prove to be enough to control the populace (“cards are not secure”), efforts will be made to put chips in people. Then such chips will be tied to all financial accounts you have, all buying and selling, and all cash will be eliminated. These chips have been invented already–they are called the Verichip–and are being marketed for “medical purposes” like Alzheimer’s patients, despite the facts that the chips are invasive, can have side effects, are extremely vulnerable to identity theft (the fastest growing crime in the US as all our information becomes interlinked with computers), and have not been proven more effective at person identification/medical identification than the good-old-reliable medicalert bracelets.

>>There will be bank runs in America again sometime soon, and 1929 will look like a picnic. This is because our money is worthless, printed by the Federal Reserve cartel of big bankers rather than our own government, and because any gold in fort knox ostensibly used to back up our ‘currency’ (such as it is) has been given away in foreign debt payments a long time ago–no audits of fort knox holdings since the 1950s…gold is over $800 an ounce now, it will move past $1000 in our lifetime, if not soon–people are waking up to the need for hard currency–after this point silver will also become more appealing as an investment…I wish I could be proud of my country, but it’s an oligarchy, not a democracy, and we are massively exploiting other countries and ourselves being screwed.

>> In 2010, or around then, depending on how fast the elite can work–and history shows they’re pretty efficient–there will be something called the North American Union, with one currency, the Amero (and presumably all our dollars will be even more worthless than they are now). If you’re wondering why you haven’t heard about this in “the media” (besides the fact that they are corporations, the CIA has a thing called Operation Mockingbird designed to plant their agents & disinformation into the media–to perpetrate their Psy Ops/ Psychological Operations aka Mind Control–I don’t know a lot about this, but I have no reason to disbelieve this–it’s because it’s an outrageous assault on national sovereignty and has nothing to do with trade. (NAFTA was just the beginning for this.) Supposedly the NAU (North American Union) will be “patterned after the EU,” but that would make it sound harmless, which it is most certainly not. It’s a step toward One-World Government, which the elites like the Rockefellers have wanted since WWII. An Asian Union (“for trade,” of course) is also in the works for 2015, and apparently there is already an African Union (which, again, I don’t know a lot about and would love to be sent information about, but I have no reason to disbelieve that the American media would censor this as well, as it censors other controversies like the idea that AIDS was probably created in the lab, and that certainly more AIDS deaths happen due to liver failure from toxic effects of antiviral cocktails than to the disease itself, etc.)

So…more to say but not now. I am not saying for anyone to liquidate their savings or do anything rash. I certainly don’t have any special information or all the answers. I just do a lot of browsing, which I present in the links here, and I keep an open mind.
See clip on YouTube or Google Video (alas, same difference: “Television is a Goddamned Amusement Park” from Network).

People, please read this and read the proposed law and think about how vague it is and how unlikely “violent radicalization” is, and how precious our rights are, and what is being threatened. Email your senators.

The House Vote was 409 to 2. Not one Democrat opposed the ludicrously-named ‘SAFE Act.’ Two Republicans did: Rep.

Ron Paul, the libertarian-leaning presidential candidate from Texas, and Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia. The ‘Congress’ still refuses to read, honor and obey the Constitution. -ed

‘Homegrown Terror’ Act An Attack On Internet Freedom?

By Rep. Ron Paul

Before the US House of Representatives, December 5, 2007

I regret that I was unavoidably out of town on October 23, 2007, when a vote was taken on HR 1955, the Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted against this misguided and dangerous piece of legislation. This legislation focuses the weight of the US government inward toward its own citizens under the guise of protecting us against “violent radicalization.”

I would like to note that this legislation was brought to the floor for a vote under suspension of regular order. These so-called “suspension” bills are meant to be non-controversial, thereby negating the need for the more complete and open debate allowed under regular order. It is difficult for me to believe that none of my colleagues in Congress view HR 1955, with its troubling civil liberties implications, as “non-controversial.”

There are many causes for concern in HR 1955. The legislation specifically singles out the Internet for “facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process” in the United States. Such language may well be the first step toward US government regulation of what we are allowed to access on the Internet. Are we, for our own good, to be subjected to the kind of governmental control of the Internet that we see in unfree societies? This bill certainly sets us on that course.

This seems to be an unwise and dangerous solution in search of a real problem. Previous acts of ideologically-motivated violence, though rare, have been resolved successfully using law enforcement techniques, existing laws against violence, and our court system. Even if there were a surge of “violent radicalization” ­ a claim for which there is no evidence ­ there is no reason to believe that our criminal justice system is so flawed and weak as to be incapable of trying and punishing those who perpetrate violent acts.

This legislation will set up a new government bureaucracy to monitor and further study the as-yet undemonstrated pressing problem of homegrown terrorism and radicalization. It will no doubt prove to be another bureaucracy that artificially inflates problems so as to guarantee its future existence and funding. But it may do so at great further expense to our civil liberties. What disturbs me most about this legislation is that it leaves the door wide open for the broadest definition of what constitutes “radicalization.” Could otherwise nonviolent anti-tax, antiwar, or anti-abortion groups fall under the watchful eye of this new government commission? Assurances otherwise in this legislation are unconvincing.

In addition, this legislation will create a Department of Homeland Security-established university-based body to further study radicalization and to “contribute to the establishment of training, written materials, information, analytical assistance and professional resources to aid in combating violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.” I wonder whether this is really a legitimate role for institutes of higher learning in a free society.

Legislation such as this demands heavy-handed governmental action against American citizens where no crime has been committed. It is yet another attack on our Constitutionally- protected civil liberties. It is my sincere hope that we will reject such approaches to security, which will fail at their stated goal at a great cost to our way of life.

Another reason to rally behind Ron Paul. This is one ballsy guy–because he tells the truth that needs to be told, plain and simple. He doesn’t need handlers or spin. He might be too uncomplicated for American politics.
—

No Taxes on Tips

It is an outrage that waiters, waitresses, and other service-sector employees have to pay taxes on the tips they earn. The IRS makes an estimate of how much service-sector workers will make in tips, and taxes them on it even if the taxpayer did not actually earn as much as the IRS’ estimate!

Tips provide a substantial portion of the income of many service-sector employees, many of whom are young people just trying to make a few extra dollars to get through school, or single parents often balancing two jobs while trying to make enough to raise a family. This tax amounts to nothing more than the federal government punishing these employees for working hard and doing their jobs well.

I have introduced H.R. 3664 in Congress to end this problem. The Tax Free Tips Act of 2007 will exempt tips from federal income and payroll taxes. Ending taxes on tips will give workers an immediate pay raise, letting them keep more money to put toward things like a house or car payment, their retirement, or their own and/or their children’s education.

When you give someone a tip, you should not have to simultaneously tip the federal government.

Ron Paul on the Evil Fed, the IRS, and Saving the Buck

At 72, Ron Paul is a Web phenomenon. His campaign says that some 80% of the $17 million raised in the past four quarters—including about $4.3 million in one October day—has come from online supporters. And according to a mid-November poll, the Republican Presidential hopeful is gaining ground in New Hampshire, though he’s still in single digits. Like maverick candidates such as Howard Dean in 2004 and Ross Perot in 1992, Paul seems to connect with voters hungry for unvarnished positions. Paul, an obstetrician and 10-term congressman from the Texas Gulf Coast, voted against the war in Iraq and wants the troops home fast, but it’s his economic ideas that are the most radical: He detests the Fed and would abolish the IRS. Paul was about to climb on a plane for a campaign trip to South Carolina when I caught up with him.

MARIA BARTIROMO

As President, how would you strengthen the economy?

RON PAUL

The most important thing is to get control of the budget, because the more we spend and the higher the deficit, the more we have to tax and borrow and inflate the currency—literally create new credit to buy Treasury bills. We need to restore confidence in the dollar before [its decline] gets out of control. The easiest place to cut spending is overseas because it’s doing so much harm to us, undermining our national defense and ruining our budget. I would start saving hundreds of billions of dollars by giving up on defending the American empire. I’d start bringing our troops home, not only from the Middle East but from Korea, Japan, and Europe, and save enough money to slash the deficit. We can actually pay down the national debt and still take care of people here at home. That would restore a lot of confidence.

What is the most important change you would make?

Aim for the federal government to immediately live within its means, to take the pressure off the Fed to create money.

And that means what?

Means no more inflation. If the Fed doesn’t create money out of thin air—and they do it mostly to accommodate the deficits—that would restore the soundness of the dollar and give us our purchasing power back.

But as President, you’re supposed to be independent from the Fed. You would encourage the Fed to stop printing money?

You know this idea that we can create a secret bank and they manage things and rarely tell us—or Congress or the Executive Branch—what they’re really doing, there’s a problem there. I can’t even go to a monetary policy board meeting of the Federal Reserve, and I’m on the Banking Committee of the U.S. Congress. I want open government, and certainly the Fed ought to be open. But it’s an institution that really shouldn’t exist. [Its financing] allows Big Government to get bigger without being responsible. And that’s why we have runaway spending for both warfare and welfare.

Hasn’t the Fed been effective in providing liquidity in the current credit crisis?

You’re right, but it’s sort of like a drug addict. The drug addict demands more or he’s going to have convulsions. The economy would have a convulsion if the Fed didn’t inject more credit. But if you continue to do that, the problem gets worse. You can’t solve the problem of monetary inflation with monetary inflation. These circumstances have all been created by our government and the Fed.

How was the recent crisis caused by our government?

It was astounding that you could get a mortgage at 4%, and this was all due to the Fed creating money and artificially lowering rates, which gets people to do the wrong thing. Builders do the wrong thing, and people borrow money and buy houses they can’t afford.

How would you change tax policy?

Ideally, get rid of the income tax. In the meantime, I’d give huge tax credits to anybody who wanted to take care of their own medical care. I’d give tax credits for all educational benefits. I’d get the government out of managing education and medicine. And do it by changing the tax code. I have a bill right now that is very popular, especially for people who are trying to work their way through college or who are having a tough time making ends meet, and that is to exempt all taxes on tips. People who have a first job or a second job waiting on tables and doing other things, they’re harassed by government rules and regulations, and sometimes they have to pay higher taxes than the tips they actually receive. I’d move next to saying no taxes on anybody who’s trying to get through college. Why do we tax them, make it hard for them, then give them grants? It doesn’t make any sense.

Who are your economic advisers?

I don’t have any. I read Austrian economics, which I’ve been doing for 30 years. So my advisers have been [von] Mises and Hayek and Sennholz.

Do you consider yourself a friend or a foe of Wall Street?

If they believe in freedom, free markets, and sound money, they’ll love me. But if they like creating credit out of thin air, they’ll see me as a threat. I was one of three people who voted against Sarbanes-Oxley because I thought it was detrimental to Wall Street. I’d repeal it.

You want to take the troops out of Iraq, but what about Iran? What do we do if other nations turn hostile?

I’d treat them something like what we did with the Soviets. I was called to military duty [as a U.S. Air Force flight surgeon] in the ’60s when they were in Cuba, and they had 40,000 nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles, and we didn’t have to fight them. We didn’t have to invade their country. But to deal with terrorism, we can’t solve the problem if we don’t understand why they [attack us]. And they don’t come because we’re free and prosperous. They don’t go after Switzerland and Sweden and Canada. They come after us because we’ve occupied their land, and instead of reversing our foreign policy after 9/11, we made it worse by invading two more countries and then threatening a third. Why wouldn’t they be angry at us? It would be absolutely bizarre if they weren’t. We’ve been meddling over there for more than 50 years. We overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953; we were Saddam Hussein’s ally and encouraged him to invade Iran. If I was an Iranian, I’d be annoyed myself, you know. So we need to change our policy, and I think we would reduce the danger.

You have vehement new supporters. What’s driving the sudden interest in your candidacy?

I think they’re sick and tired of what they’re getting. They’ve lost all trust and faith in the government. They believe in the American Dream, and they’re getting a nightmare. And they’re rallying behind the program I’ve been working on for 30 years—defending the Constitution, limited government, free markets, sound money, and self-reliance; believing people can take care of themselves better than government can. The nanny state doesn’t work, the police state doesn’t work, and neither does the warfare. And they know it.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of criminal justice, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

–It is possible to eliminate the national debt. Not only that,but we can’t keep ignoring it and passing it on to future generations who will have to become work-slaves to debt their whole lives and have no retirement.

–We don’t need higher taxes to eliminate the national debt. Where are our taxes going? For illegal wars; to pay off cartels like the Federal Reserve, who own our debt and lord it over us; to the private subcontractors who are running this country and doing the services regulated government once did.

–The Federal Reserve creates debt by artificially pouring money into the money supply–also known as inflation. Inflation is what makes your money worth less in terms of purchasing power. Purchasing power, like it or not, is what drives our economy. But inflation also discourages saving, an, contrary to what you don’t hear anymore, saving is an important part of our economy, as well as an important tool for individual security.

–” Real conservatives have always supported low taxes and low spending.”–Yes, who we have in government are not Republicans–not that these labels matter, “Republican” or “Democrat”–the ones in power are all neo-conservatives with a very precise agenda to dominate the country and erode your liberties.

–Corporate welfare: no candidate I know of is even making this a topic on the table, other than Ron Paul. It is rampant and needs to end. If corporations love capitalism so much, they can sink or swim without taxpayer handouts, period.

–Even if you are not a libertarian, if you are not aware of the need for sound money policy, you really can’t know how to govern, how to implement social policies, how to know the impact of laws, how to distribute wealth, etc. Like the old saying, “follow the money.”

————

Debt and Taxes

Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives.

Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by $40 a month or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains taxes and hire more employees, that tax cut is a good thing. Lower taxes allow more spending, saving, and investing which helps the economy — that means all of us.

Real conservatives have always supported low taxes and low spending.

But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don’t cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future — and yours.

In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply — making each dollar in your pocket worth less. The Fed is a private bank run by unelected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to “we the people.”

Worse, our economy and our very independence as a nation is increasingly in the hands of foreign governments such as China and Saudi Arabia, because their central banks also finance our runaway spending.

We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It’s called the Constitution of the United States.

This is now out in the open, folks. The NAU is going to happen unless we send firm messages with out votes that we don’t think overarching megagovernments eroding civil liberties is a good idea. (And if we do think it’s a “good idea,” for “business” or “trade,” to sacrifice our rights, we have truly been brainwashed.)

—

American Independence and Sovereignty

So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites.

The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a doctor’s prescription to take herbs and vitamins. Alternative treatments could be banned.

The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws, yet we still face trade wars. Today, France is threatening to have U.S. goods taxed throughout Europe. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs.

NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme.

And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever.

Let’s not forget the UN. It wants to impose a direct tax on us. I successfully fought this move in Congress last year, but if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to tax us, we will need leadership from the White House.

We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America.

December 4, 2007

When was the last time you saw this kind of transparency in government?

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of criminal justice, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

—
Do not pass S. 1959!
I am not a criminal because I keep a blog and use the internet to post my political beliefs.

I am very concerned about how vague this law defines ideological crimes or incitement to crimes. I am concerned about my civil liberties, and how this law can easily make almost anyone into a “terrorist” should they try to communicate unconventional ideas about our government, or about “social change.”

This law is a step in the wrong direction, a step toward controlling people. This law does not promote security and prosperity. I would like my elected officials to promote security through means of ensuring economic equality and justice, not through increasing militarization and increasingly punitive laws.

Please do not attempt to censor me, or anyone in the general public; do not censor the Internet or the Press. I will have no part in your military-industrial-corporate complex. I will not take a microchip in the future. I will not be catalogued. I am not a worker bee. I am not a product. I am an intrinsically valuable human being and I will not be sold out for the power-interests of others. I pay taxes, and am saddened that they are used for fueling never-ending wars. Will you take a real stand to fully investigate the events of 9/11/2001? Or will you be part of the elite group who labels questioners “radicals” and “terrorists”? I am an artist and would love to be doing my art, not writing to you. In a free country, I could live in peace. If this law is passed, my art and my vocation could make me into a criminal.

They always need more power, don’t they? They never have enough power to do their job, so they always need more power.

One can vaguely remember a time when the legislative didn’t do the absolute bidding of the executive.

Now you could speak for any kind of “social change” and be considered a terrorist.

I would love big government if it actually fed the hungry, gave shelter to the homeless, gave places for drug users to kick their habits, stopped making teens all out to have mood disorders and in need of toxic, psychotropic, flouridated medication, and gave everyone meaningful education, access to information, decent housing, clean water and food, and employment. Since our current big government isn’t doing any of those things, and since our taxes are actually going to pay off the national debt and the cartel of banks known as the Federal Reserve, perhaps we should have a small government, or dismantle this government and make a new one. Preferably one without an electoral college. We still have the right to revolution, you know. It’s what was done in 1776.

***Disclaimer to overzealous law enforcement: I am not advocating the use of force or violence, physical, intellectual, or otherwise. What I am advocating is a serious reflection on the system and its change or transformation into a new and just system, or the adoption of such a system. I am not advocating the physical or other kind of harm to anyone under any circumstances. It is very important, above all, that we use democratic means of voting and press/reporting to improve our lives and the lives of others and educate people about what they can do to make positive personal and community changes, without the use of violence, force, or domination whatsoever. It is essential that we do not use the ploys or tactics of punitive and authoritarian systems. It is important to build our strength through common awareness and collective actions such as economic boycotts, letter-writing, community groups, town hall meetings, and so on.

I am not representing any group or organization. I am a private concerned citizen. I am maintaining this personal web-page or web-blog as a way of exercising my right to free speech. This personal web page is for the information of others, to communicate and start dialogue with others. Again, I am in no way whatsoever calling for any kind of violent action or any kind of action that could be perceived as violent or aggressive. I am not condoning the breaking of any laws.

I’d really like to see how they intend to do this.
It’s lip service. There is no other mention of how civil liberties intend to be protected, other than a statement in the next section about how provisions of this law are to be “racially neutral.” That means equal-opportunity accusations of terrorism. We can’t have race-blind and need blind college admissions, but law and military enforcement and urban warfare agents will seize you and your assets no matter what ethnicity you are.